The War On Christmas (Carols)

I am frequently accused of being a Scrooge, a Grinch, choose your insult because I tend to celebrate Christmas in my own fashion instead of just blindly thinking that what everyone else thinks is cool is.

And yes, I do say "Happy Holidays", get over it. The fact is, despite Christian egocentrism, that some people do NOT celebrate Christmas. And, yes, my Christian friends, your Jewish/Athiest/Agnostic/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu friends really DO mind you wishing them Merry Christmas. The only reason that you think that they don't is because they smile and thank you so as not to hurt your sensitive feelings. It is only your insensitivity that allows you to force Merry Christmas on people that you know damned WELL don't celebrate.

One thing that I don't understand about modern Christmas is why are polar bears and penguins suddenly symbols of Christmas? All right, okay, I BUY if not AGREE WITH polar bears because they are at the north pole, where Santa is, but penguins live on entirely the wrong side of the Earth.

On to "Christmas Carols". I love Christmas music, especially spiritual music. Away In A Manger, Silent Night… these are great songs.

But there are some songs that are NOT Christmas songs that we only hear at Christmas time, passed off as Christmas carols. Frosty The Snowman is NOT a Christmas carol, nor is My Favorite Things from The Sound of Music. Sleigh Ride isn't a Christmas song, nor is Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow. Why not? Because they don't mention Christmas, Santa, the Nativity or Christ. To me, this renders them NOT Christmas songs. Good King Wencaslas is not a Christmas song. It says "Good King Wencaslas looked out on the FEAST OF STEPHEN." Saint Stephen's feast day is December 26th, not Christmas.

And one that's always kind of bugged me is a lyric from "Do You Hear What I Hear?" I can't help but think that this song was originally in another language, and got either mistranslated or intentionally re-translated to make it flow better. That's the line that says "A child, a child, shivers in the cold, let us bring him silver and gold." First off, NONE of the wise men brought silver to Jesus. They brought gold, incense and myrrh. Second off, if a child shivers in the cold, let us bring him a freaking blanket or a puppy or a teddy bear or something that will keep him warm and stop him shivering, right?

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Identity Theft 101

Whenever I hear an entertainer like Bill Maher or Michael Moore refer to Americans as "stupid", I feel the need to defend us. I mean… I like both of these entertainers, but the implication is that the rest of America is somehow dumber than them. Or at least the people who disagree with them are dumber than them.

I think that it's not a matter of intelligence, but a matter of choice. "I don't know what I don't know, and you are BY GOD not going to make me know it!" I think that, instead of stupidity, it is a dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance. (And no… please do not fall into the trap of equating ignorance with stupidity. An ignorant person can be educated if they choose… a stupid person cannot.)

What has specifically brought this to mind for me is the number of people that I have seen using someone else's credit card. We are FREAKING OUT about identity theft. Almost every bank and insurance company now has an "identity protection" arm, and there are also several private companies that do nothing BUT identity protection.

At the same time, we piss and moan if a clerk asks to see our ID for a credit card, or refuses to let us use someone else's card. By the way… if a clerk refuses to let you use daddy's credit card, don't get pissed at them, it's not the store policy. IT IS FEDERAL LAW. It is a federal CRIME to present someone else's card… it's called fraud, because you are presenting yourself as that person when you're not. And then, if you sign their name to the credit slip, you're also guilty of forgery.

And then let's not forget speed pass and speed pay and swipe machines and all of the other things that we insist on for "convenience" that make credit card fraud amazingly easy.

So, we insist that we have all of these "conveniences". Then we lose our card. We don't notice right away. Someone charges a couple hundred dollars worth of crap on it using speed pay, we see the charges, realize that our card is gone. Do we accept this as the price of the conveniences that we insist on? No. We demand that the credit card company or the bank eat the loss. They then turn around and report it to their insurance company and get reimbursed. And then we bitch about how much insurance costs…

So here are my ideas to resolve this…

1) We go back to the old days of credit card presentation. If you present your card… no matter how small the purchase is… we are required to show a photo ID and sign a slip of paper. PERIOD.

2) For online purchases, a pin or password is required for all credit card transactions. You establish the pin with your bank or credit card company, and then that would be used in place of the utterly useless "card security code", which is, insanely, printed on the card.

3) A tip for your own cards. The only time that I have ever lost a credit or debit card was when I lost my entire wallet. A girlfriend of mine would constantly "lose" (read as: forget) her credit and debit cards places. The solution? When you take out your credit or debit card, keep your wallet in your hand until it's returned.

4) Make the merchants responsible for DOUBLE any illegal credit card transactions. They would have to eat the cost of the transaction, and then pay a fine equal to the amount.

If we enacted these things, identity theft would almost become a thing of the past.

But we won't.

Is it because we're stupid? I think not. Lazy, maybe…

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Obama and Afghanistan

First off, I would like to say that any liberal Obama supporters out there who are pissing and moaning about the increased troop commitment in Afghanistan just need to shut the hell up. When he was campaigning for this job in 2008 and he SAID that he would increase the troop commitment in Afghanistan, were you not paying attention, or were you just so busy hoping for change that you didn't hear him?

You have to pay attention.

In his acceptance speech at the convention, he talked about how he argued for more troops in Afghanistan and said " I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan." In the first presidential debate, when asked if we needed more troops in Afghanistan, Obama clearly said "yes" while McCain rambled about not repeating the mistakes of the past. You know, like voting republican.

For the record, I oppose the mess in Afghanistan almost as strongly as I do the mess in Iraq. The big difference is that there WAS a time for us to go into Afghanistan militarily… and that was eight years ago when we had a snowball's chance in hell of catching Osama Bin Laden and bringing him to justice. I believe that chance is gone, and that we don’t belong in there.

All that I'm saying is "don't allow your own wishful thinking to change what the man said". He's not BREAKING a campaign promise, he's KEEPING one.

Also, can we please stop giving the right-wing mediacrocy crap about giving HIM crap for everything that he does? That's their job… that's how they keep their rifle-toting, Bible-thumping, shut-in viewers. The message was, is and shall remain "be afraid of the black guy". It's not going to change. And if you expect fairness from the likes of Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, then you're betting on a lame horse.

Mailing List

Hello.

If you'd like to be on a mailing list to be notified when this blog is updated, please send the request to dragonfoureyes@gmail.com

Thanks

Rev. Randal

Earmarking Taxes

A week ago yesterday, I sent the following letter to my representatives - two republican, one democrat. I have yet to hear back from any of them.

My name is Randal Schaffer, and i am a recent transfer to Missouri from Washington State, and i have a question.

With the recent spate of people screaming that they don't want to pay taxes to support "socialized medicine" (but apparently have no problem paying taxes to fund wars for oil) i was wondering if there would be a way to "earmark" our taxes.

By this, i mean to make a space on our tax forms to allocate a certain percentage of our taxes for different non-essential government programs. Health care, the wars, government grants such as art, education, etc. I realize that a certain percentage would have to be set aside for basic government operations... after all, if we were given a choice i think that NONE of us would opt to pay the salaries of IRS auditors. But aside from that, why can't we allocate our other taxes? I can't think of a surer way for you, as our representative to TRULY understand what your constituents do and do not support.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

One of my loved ones who serves as an excellent sounding board for me (he is a moderate conservative, as I am a moderate liberal) observed that they wouldn't necessarily know what we, as their constituency did and didn't support because the amount that we pay in taxes is confidential. So I explained that I was thinking more on a district-by-district or state-by-state level than on an individual basis. After all, if 60% of the taxes from a representative's district were earmarked for health care BY HIS CONSTIUENCY, wouldn't it be difficult for him to argue that the people in his district don't want health care?

Maybe that's why they haven't responded to me. This scheme could wind up being very, very bad for corporate donations from… say… insurance companies. Or if no one wanted to continue funding the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan, well, there goes any donation from GE or Boeing or the other companies that make so many millions of dollars off of the death and destruction of war.

I've gotta tell you that I'm relatively sick of the "tea parties". The first thing that I think is that these people's knowledge of American history at large and the Boston Tea Party in specific is a little hazy. The second thing is to wonder, if these people are concerned about their taxes being levied with no return, where were they six years ago when Bush wanted to start dumping billions into removing a foreign leader who never attacked us?

But… to my brothers and sisters who support the tea parties as well as the rest of you, I offer an olive branch in the form of an idea that will bring about tax reform that is both TRUE and RADICAL. Write to your representatives and let them know that you want to direct them on how to spend your taxes. Heck, feel free to use the letter that I wrote if you want, I don't mind. Just sign your own name so that they know that it's coming from their constituent.

And no, it won't mean more work on your taxes, beyond simply checking a box. Well, and staying informed on the issues but no more than you would on ANYTHING that you spend your money on. And if you don't even want to do THAT much extra work, that's fine too. There would be a box to mark to allow the government to continue deciding how to spend your money. Or waste it. Or whatever.

But none of us want that.

Do we?

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Political Blindness

Happy Thanksgiving to my American readers.

Why do we have such a hard time seeing our politicians for who and what they are?

Before I start this, full disclosure… I AM going to focus on the two politicians who made up the republican presidential ticket last year, because they are the two who have recently come to my mind. And before any of you start whining that I'm as blind about Barack Obama as any republican is about McCain or Palin, I will remind you that in this blog I have taken President Obama to task for not keeping his campaign promises. One in particular, while I'm thinking about it, is his promise to close the tax loophole that allows American corporate entities to profit by outsourcing our jobs. Get on it, Obama. You've only got eight years.

Now then. Let's start with Mr. McCain. I was watching a documentary recently called Poliwood, which is about a group of "movie people"; actors, producers, writers and directors who traveled to the democratic and republican primaries last year. In one scene, a group of actors (led by Tim Daly) sat down with a group of who I will assume for the sake of argument were "REAL AMERICANS" and not set dressing planted there by the republican party. One of these women got very upset about (not quoting here, quotes only to indicate dialogue) "How dare these hollywood types get up and think that they speak for the American people? How could someone who makes millions of dollars per year and own eight houses think that they can represent the American people?" All the while wearing a pin bearing the name of John McCain… a man who makes millions of dollars per year… and owns eight houses… and who SHE apparently thinks can represent her. Tim Daly was very nice to her. Personally, as a REAL AMERICAN, I can't help but wonder if she was dropped on her head. RECENTLY. I would also remind this lady that every actor who has ever run for or been elected to a federal post (Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred What's-his-name from Law and Order, Gopher from the Love Boat) have all been elected by REPUBLICANS. Personally, I can't think of a single democrat who has served in the house, the senate or the white house that used to be an actor. Even Clint Eastwood, who served for a while as Mayor of Carmel, California is a libertarian, which is a republican who smokes pot. Personally, although I call myself independent, the libertarians have more of my heart than EITHER of the two major parties.

The other one that came to mind recently is Sarah Palin. At my day job, I was ringing a customer up, thought that I had finished with her, and then, as her cart was rolling past me, I noticed that "Going Rogue" had gotten folded up into the child seat. I have a really difficult time calling this "Sarah Palin's Book" since she admits that she didn't write it. Anyway, I got the book out, and the customer said "I wonder how she got there?" I said, joking of course, "Probably hiding from the media." The smile vanished from the customer's face as she said "That's not likely." I said "I was just making a joke about the fact that she claims that the media's stalking her, and then every time that they stop paying attention to her, she does something to get them to pay attention to her again so that she can claim that they're stalking her." The customer's reponse? "Oh, you must be a democrat." You guessed that, right? I said "Actually, ma'am, I'm an independent. Forty years ago, when such a strange creature existed, I would have been called a "liberal republican"." She didn't know how to respond to that. But her initial response amused me. Like the statement that I made is true for democrats and false for republicans. The truth is the truth, people. Learn it, live it. This is not my opinion, just as saying that McCain makes millions of dollars and owns eight houses is not my opinion. It is simply the WAY THAT THINGS ARE. If Sarah Palin didn't want press attention, she wouldn't have been Miss Palmer. Or run for governor. Or run for vice-president. Or resign her governorship after less than six months into her new term. Or been on SNL. Or written a book. Or gone on the talk-show circuit to hawk it. THE WOMAN IS A MEDIA WHORE. And just like any whore, she finds it easier to sleep at night when she can blame her troubles on the source of her income rather than herself.

See them for who they are, people.

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Cheap Wordplay

Periodically, with my love of words, I like to write about words that have either changed meaning or lost their meaning in our society. For instance, some years ago, I wrote about the word “extreme”, which is so overused in our culture to mean absolutely nothing. Everything is “extreme”. Therefore, according to the rules of logic, nothing is.

The word that I would like to tackle today is “cheap”. A customer at my day job referred to some product or other that we were carrying as “cheap”, and I, as I always do, said “We use the term “inexpensive”, sir... we don't sell “cheap”.” Which is true. The customer got mad at me, unfortunately, but let's face it... cheap is a loaded word. If it EVER meant “inexpensive”, then it hasn't for as long as I can remember. I never heard my dad refer to anything of quality as “cheap”. The only time that I ever heard him use the word to my recollection, it was always followed by “piece of shit”. He wasn't a man to spend extra money on style, but he would for substance.

Which makes me think of another point. If you look at the price of a product on the shelf and think “Wow, that's really cheap”, you're probably right. Talk to the store clerks and, if you have to, the manager, and if they can't justify an amazingly low price to you, don't buy the product. Or, if you do, don't bitch when it turns out to be a cheap piece of... well... you know.

As a for instance... I moved recently. Because I basically put what I couldn't fit into my car but didn't want to part with (memorabilia, my dragon collection, stuff that my kids made when they were little) into storage, crammed what I could into my car and sold the rest, I'm pretty much starting over with stuff. One of the things that I had to buy when I got here was a microwave. (Well, let's face it. I didn't HAVE to buy one, but I sure wanted one.) So I set out, expecting to get something... yes... you know it... CHEAP for under $50. Some cheap POS that I could get my fifty bucks worth out of before it blew up. I came across a store that we didn't have up north called “Ultimate Electronics”, and thought well, if they're like Fry's, then they will have microwaves and decent prices.

First thing that I see when I walk through the door? Hotpoint microwaves for $19.95. I was reassured that they were Hotpoint, a brand that I'm familiar with and not “Lucky Dragon” or something. So I asked the clerk about the deal. He said that they were actually a model from two generations ago that someone at Hotpoint had discovered mouldering away in a warehouse somewhere, and offered to Ultimate at a killer deal just to clear up the space.

See how that works? Now, had it been a “Lucky Dragon” microwave (not a real brand, as far as I know) for $19.95, I would have been immediately suspicious. Then, had I asked the clerk why they were such a screamin deal and he said “Oh, I don't know. That's just the price that they sell at.” Then the first thought through my brain would be “cheap”. The second would be “Piece of shit”. The third would be “I'm not buying this.”

So, from this day forward, can we please leave “cheap” to mean only an inexpensive product of dubious quality, and not use it to describe a low price? Because, let's face it, when you HEAR the word “cheap”, what do you think? Junk, right? CHEAP PIECE OF SHIT, yeah?

Okay.

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Flying the Flag

There are times when it's appropriate to fly the flag halfway down the flagpole. In the Army, Air Force, Marines and civilian world, this is called flying the flag at half-staff; in the navy it is half-mast. These times are times of national tragedy. An attack on our homeland, such as 9/11. The death of a statesman or nationally revered figure.

To my way of thinking, the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007 weren't a cause to fly the flag at half-staff, although many did.

Neither, in my opinion, are the shootings at Fort Hood. The army… maybe the entire military should fly their flags at half-staff… it is an institutional tragedy. The people who lost loved ones, or who were personally effected by the shootings should… it is a personal tragedy.

It is NOT a national tragedy, and should not be a national day of mourning. Should we start flying the flag at half-staff every time some nutjob goes berzerk and shoots a bunch of people? I rather think not.

So why then are so many flags flying at half-staff? I think that I know. I think that it is people who want their piece of the pity pie. It's like when a cop was shot in Washington state several years ago and more than 300 cars joined his funeral procession. Most of these people had never heard of this cop before he got shot. When a news reporter asked one of these people why they joined, she put a simpering look on her face and tone in her voice and said "I just felt like I should… it was so sad." Bullshit. You just wanted your piece of that pity pie. And you got to be ON TV! SCORE! Leave these people to their private mourning, would you please, you inconsiderate pricks?

On a related note, I'm not sure why we're surprised when a soldier kills someone. Isn't that what they're trained to do? Like John Rambo said in First Blood (the only one of the series worth watching), "They taught us how to kill and put a rifle in our hands. No one ever taught us how to stop."

We no longer train warriors… we now train soldiers. For instance, for the current engagement in Iraq, soldiers are being taught to run kids over with tanks using paper cut-outs. Why? Because you never know when a kid is carrying an IED. I read a heart-breaking letter from the sister of a soldier who had a nervous breakdown during this particular training. See that little old lady over there who looks like your gramma? KILL HER! SHE MIGHT BE CARRYING A BOMB! Don't think, just SHOOT!

No, I am not raving against our men and women in uniform here. Anyone who knows me or has read this blog knows that I come from a military family, and have four years of ROTC (medical stuff kept me out of the military myself). To me, this is just another indicator that we shouldn't be involved in this mess in Iraq. It is a dishonorable, pointless war.

And our national hysteria over terrorism has led us to question whether or not the soldier, a Muslim named Nidal Malik Hasan is actually a TERRORIST! Come on, people. A question like that is a very short walk from imprisoning American Muslims just like the hysteria following the Pearl Harbor attacks led us to unjustly imprison countless Japanese-Americans in WWII.

We can't let that happen again.

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Repulican Rape Hypocrisy

Thank you for your patience, readers, and I'm sorry that I've been gone for so long. I moved in October from Washington State to Missouri, and am finally settling in enough to feel comfortable.

Seantor Al Franken recently won his first victory in the Senate, but to me it is a victory that highlights both the trouble with partisanship in our system, and the hypocrisy
inherent in the current incarnation of the republican party.

Franken's bill, the first that he introduced in the Senate, would prevent the government from awarding contracts to companies that “restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” This is largely based on a 2005 case of a woman working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad who was raped by several male co-workers. When she tried to report this, she was locked in a shipping container for 24 hours with no food, drink or bed and then told that, if she left Baghdad, she would be out of a job. When she tried to sue Halliburton for this, a stipulation in her contract was pointed out that stated that she couldn't… instead she had to resolve it through mediation. Franken's bill passed 68-30.

Why would 30 senators vote against such a common-sense seeming piece of legislation? I'll answer that with a simple statement… all thirty were republicans. There are, as near as I can tell, two possible reasons for this. One is that they voted against it simply because it was introduced by a high-profile democrat, which is bullshit. The other is that, if they voted for this, it would piss off their corporate overlords, which is BULLSHIT!

One senator gave, as his reasoning, that the government should not base granting of contracts on alleged malfeasance. You know, like how the republicans are trying to get Acorn's contract pulled because a fake hooker and her fake pimp got advice from an Acorn worker on how to fake-break the law. Oops.

Another said that the government shouldn't interfere in how a private company treats its employees. First off, the government interferes in how private companies treat their employees ALL THE TIME! Child labor laws, workplace safety laws, minimum wage laws, overtime laws, the five-day work week… you name it. When I was a cab driver, I had a stack of government-mandated laws that I had to follow, and not one of these laws interfered with my ability to make a living. Secondly, this is not a case of government interfering with how Halliburton treats its employees, it is simply a statement that, if they continue in this fashion, they won't be able to get any more government contracts.

In an attempt at balance here, I went out to find comments by republican apologists on this issue, and I'd like to address what I found here.

The primary argument was that perhaps the bill was loaded with pork or worded in such a way to achieve some other nefarious goal, like the vote in Seattle several years ago that purported to ban smoking within 25 feet of public doorways, but actually banned smoking inside any public building such as bars and restaurants. Sadly, I was unable to find the text of the bill online. If anyone else can, please post it in comments. All I can say is that, until the republicans quit blocking democratic attempts to limit or eliminate pork spending in laws, that is going to be a fact of our system. And I have yet to find anyone who can state with certainty that this is the case. Also, NO senators who voted against this bill gave this as their reason.

For the record, for those who wish to use this vote as the basis for THEIR future votes, here are the thirty senators who voted against this bill. Alexander (R-TN), Barrasso (R-WY), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Gregg (R-NH), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johanns (R-NE), Kyl (R-AZ), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Wicker (R-MS). I recognize several of these as the partisan republican "usual suspects", including Brownback, Cornyn, Ensign, Graham, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions and Wicker.

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Medical Malpractice

Let's talk for a second about medical malpractice reform. The republicans are right that this needs to be addressed in ANY health care reform, but I rather think that my version of malpractice reform will be somewhat more generous than the corporate-minded republicans would be.

Part of the problem with medical malpractice... indeed, with ANY litigation in America today is that Americans tend to view a settlement or judgment the same way that we view winning the lottery – an easy way to big bucks. And who decides on the judgment amount? Americans. So they award their fellow American a ridiculous amount of money in the hopes that someone will do the same for them someday.

So let's start by nailing down the definitions of damages a little more closely. “Damages” in general describes the money paid out to remunerate the injured party for their injuries. These fall into two categories: actual damages and punitive damages.

Actual damages refer to compensation to cover actual monetary losses. If you have to miss work because of the malpractice, or are deprived of your ability to earn future income.

Punitive damages are moneys paid to... as the name suggests... PUNISH the person that you're suing. Personally, I think that doctors shouldn't be liable for punitive damages except in cases of GROSS negligence. If the doctor just screwed up... it's sad, but you know what? It happens. Now, if the doctor was high or drunk, ill, suffering insomnia or something else that should really prevent him from practicing and THAT is what caused the malpractice, well, that's different. Hurt the hell out of that sucker.

Some states place “caps” on medical malpractice, amounts that the awards can't exceed. I think that this is what the republicans would like to see on a federal level. I CAN agree with that, but only if the caps are not set dollar amounts, but sliding amounts based on a scale.

For instance... and this is going to sound cold... if a child dies due to malpractice, the child should be worth less in monetary award than a spouse. The reason? The typical parent has no expectation of the child EVER being a wage earner in their household. So actual damages should be extremely low, although money for counseling for the parents should be included as actual damage. To those who find that unfair, let me ask you a question... is there ANY amount of money that will replace your child? If you get a new car, or a boat, will that make the loss of your child any easier? I know that in my case, it would not. Some parents can't survive the loss of a child no matter HOW much money they get, and some parents like John Walsh and his wife recover from the loss of a child with NO money and come back to do amazing things.

Now, it's different if you have a child who is rendered incapable of taking care of themselves. Say brain damage. I think that in those cases, a child's award should EXCEED that of an adult. It should be calculated depending on the age of the child, life expectancy, the years that the person will need care (and all of those years should be paid) as well as future earnings. Not entirely sure how you would calculate future earnings for a child in grade school or high school, but I'm sure that there MUST be.

Now do you get an idea why this isn't addressed in the health care bill? No matter how vital I think that it is, or YOU think that it is, it is a deep, complex issue with no easy solution. And when you DO apply an easy solution (such as the states that cap malpractice judgments at a set dollar amount) you wind up not treating each person as an individual, giving some people far more than they should be awarded and others far less.

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Let Me Get This Straight...

I watched Republican leader John Boehner on the Newshour on PBS last night rant and rave about how frightened Americans are of trillion dollar deficits.

Um... Mr. Boehner? I realize that you're one of the history-revising republicans who thinks that this decade went 1999, 2009 with nothing in between, I feel compelled to remind you that the trillion dollar deficits had nothing to do with President Obama's health care plan and very little to do with the stimulus and rescue packages passed under EITHER President Obama or he-who-must-not-be-named. The trillion dollar deficits come from the mess in Iraq that was rammed down America's throat by YOU, Mr. Boehner, your fellow republicans and the last man to sit in the oval office. (Even the republicans seem to not want to hear his name these days.)

Which reminds me, I owe the sitting President an apology. Mr. President, I am dreadfully sorry for saying that you weren't getting us out of Iraq fast enough. In my impatience, I forgot that we are on a timetable requested by the Iraqi people to keep our troops there to help them rebuild through the end of 2011. My error.

Now.

To put this as politely as I can.

Any politician... especially any REPUBLICAN politician... who voted for the war and yet wants to say that health care isn't feasible because of America's trillion dollar deficit needs to SHUT THE FUCK UP! IT'S YOUR FAULT!

Universal health care is a good thing... it is a necessary thing... and it is a MORAL thing. The mess in Iraq that squanders our treasure and human lives is NONE of these things.

You know, whenever I hear republicans talk about this sort of thing, all that I can hear is “Why aren't you cleaning our mess up faster?”

SHUT

UP

It amazes me that ANY Americans still listen to you guys, let alone take you seriously. Like the death panel bullshit. From the first time that I heard that, I thought “Surely Americans are not dumb enough to take that seriously.” Way to prove me WRONG, America.

Rep. Boehner also said, regarding the “tea parties” and the town halls, that he liked to see Americans “involved in the system”. These people are not involved in the system any more than the kids who protested the Iraq war without bothering to vote were. They're either A) being paid by the insurance industry to block progress or B) simply hoping that they can shout loudly enough or be obnoxious enough to make one of the news shows. Which, by the way, need to stop giving these people air time.

Let me get one more thing straight while I'm at it...

The republicans have been harping since the beginning of the primaries that THEY are the ones who are going to protect your second amendment rights, and that Obama was going to send goon squads into your house to take your hunting rifles away. REEEEAAALLLY.

When someone wore a T-SHIRT protesting he-who-must-not-be-named to one of his appearances, he relegated them to “free speech zones” miles away “for his safety”. Can you imagine what would have happened to one of these people who turned up WITH A GUN? Whereas President Obama HAS armed protestors turning up at his appearances and makes no attempt whatsoever to remove them.

So let's get this straight... WHO'S protecting your second amendment rights?

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Memo to the President RE: Afghanistan

Dear Mr. President,

I'd like to take a moment to address the issue of Afghanistan, since you seem open to considering alternative viewpoints to your own on this issue, unlike your predecessor.

I have grave concerns about further military action in Afghanistan. You ran (at least partly) on a platform of getting us the HELL out of Iraq, which you seem to show little interest in doing. Instead, you seem at least willing to send MORE of our young men and women to die in a foreign land in a struggle that is, ultimately, not ours.

I would also like to ask the questions of you on this issue that I asked your predecessor on Iraq...

1)What is our objective? If we engage in a military action without an objective, then there will be no end.
2)Corollary to that, what constitutes “victory” in Afghanistan? How do we know when we've “won” so that we can go home. You're an intelligent man... if you believe that there is a military solution to terrorism, i'd like to hear your argument.

Afghanistan is a war that SHOULD have been fought eight years ago, Mr. President, when the stated objective was to capture and punish Osama Bin Laden. They failed. Our window of opportunity for that has passed.

Mr. President, I understand and sympathize with your desire for bipartisanship. It is an admirable goal, and one that I share. The problem is that the Republican party has drifted so far into never-never land that you're not making compromises to any kind of intelligent middle-right... instead you are having to drift to the FAR right in order to appease racists who are NEVER going to be appeased by you. No matter HOW far to the right you go, it will never be enough to please them, unless you turn into another George W. Bush.

And I and the other people who voted for you do not want that.

Peace.

Rev. Randal

US and the G8

I want to talk here for a minute about a group of nations that we belong to called the "G8". What this stands for is "group of eight", and, although it's not politically correct to say it, we are basically the eight nations that rule the world. In alphabetical order, the G8 is Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US. China is not represented there, and frankly I think that they should be. They kind of hold us by the short and curlies and we've given them so much money and power that we've basically turned them into a very, very scary world power. 21st century technology and money in hands controlled by a sixteenth century mindset.

Be that as it may, I got to wondering how well we actually fit with this group of enlightened nations.

So let's start with health care. ALL of the G8 provides health care for it's citizens… except us. A L L of them.

So that means that they spend more on health care than us, right? Wrong. Canada comes closest, but even they only spend half as much money on a per capita basis than we do. We're spending more money and STILL not covering everyone? Something's seriously wrong there, folks.

So what about life expectancy? Well, let me start by saying that the WORLD'S average life expectancy is 67 right now and we're WAY above that. So that's okay. But what about the rest of the G8? Well, if you're Japanese, you're living to about 82 right now. Of course, that may change with the vengeance with which they've adopted McDonald's over the last decade. If you're Canadian, you're living to about 81, eh? Just over 81 in Canada, just under it for the French. If you're Italian, you're going to about 80 and about 79 for the Germans. Take it from a half-German… that's only because they're too damned stubborn to die! Frankly, I can't help but wonder that they're not higher on the list. If you're British, you're going to about 79 as well. And the states? 78. The only one of the G8 that we beat is Russia. If you're Russian, it's 66.

Okay, what about infant mortality? Our combination of veneration of our children, hatred for abortion and THE FINEST FUCKING HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD means that we should have no infant mortality to speak of, right? Well, let's see… Well, the Japanese are at the top of that list, too. They lose about 3 infants per 1000 live births. Then us, right? Well, no. Then France. They lose about 4. Then us? Wrong again. next comes Germany who loses about 4 and then the UK who loses about 5. God, tell me that we're doing better than Russia, at least. Well, Canada and Italy each lose about 5 per 1000 live births, and then… YES! US! We lose about six babies out of every 1000 live births - more than twice as many as Japan. Slovenia, Singapore and Czechoslovakia all have lower infant mortality rates than us. So let's see, that's 7. Again, we do better than Russia, where they lose about 16 babies per 1000 live births. Compared to Russia, WE ROCK! But since when have we set our goals as being "We're not as bad as Russia"?

The final point that I'd like to make, and the only one NOT associated with the health care debate is this one…

Out of this group of nations, this group that I think most of us would consider among the most civilized and advanced of the nations on the Earth right now, only the United States of America ritually puts people to death. Even Russia has outlawed capital punishment.

Jesus, how can we even consider that we're worthy to sit at the big-kids table with this group?

Peace.

Rev. Randal

On Van Jones' Resignation

Van Jones, President Obama's “Green Energy Czar” resigned today after that asshole republican Glen Beck revealed some of his checkered past. These included calling republicans “assholes” (oops), signing a petition to blame the Bush administration for 9/11 and claiming that white people are polluting black neighborhoods. You know what? I kind of buy that last one. He's been called a racist for making that statement, but let's face it... America, especially white America, especially white RICH America, tends to use the rest of the world and the people who aren't rich white Americans as their personal toilets. I mean, for how long have we been dumping our physical and toxic waste on underprivileged countries, and opening prisons, halfway houses and dumps in poor neighborhoods? So you know what, Van? I'm with you on that last one.

As far as the Bush administration orchestrating 9/11 goes... sorry, Van. I just don't think that they had the collective intelligence or ability to keep secrets necessary for that. Cheney might have pulled it off if he were alone, but he would have had to have relied on way too many other people. So I just don't buy it.

As far as calling republicans “assholes” goes... look, I love republicans. I have some dear republican friends. My best friend is a republican. But lets face it, in public, such as F-word news and your elected representatives, YOU GUYS ACT LIKE A BUNCHA ASSHOLES! Still, if he aspired to a political office he shouldn't have said it. And the President should have screened him better.

So Van took a well-deserved resignation. Good. I wish that he'd quit whining about how he was “smeared”. Van, buddy, you said it, you SHOULDN'T have said it, it's done. Let it go.

But I can't help but wonder...

What about the republican representative who called the Obamas “uppity”? Or the one who said that defeating health care was a golden opportunity to “take down” the president? Or the men who were involved in “leaking” Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent? Yeah, I know that they scapegoated Scooter Libby for that, but even he was pardoned by Bush. What about the republican (and democrat) representatives who foisted this mess in Iraq and the “USA PATRIOT” act on us? Why don't any of THESE people resign?

Don't get me wrong. I think that Van was wrong for what he said. And I think that he's downright CRAZY to believe that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11. But as the right rejoices in his resignation, why aren't they calling for the heads of the rest of these people? We need to get beyond the partisanship that caused Van to call republicans “assholes”, but also the partisanship that causes republicans to protect the rest of these... well... assholes.

Peace.

Randal

Let's Get Our Terms Straight...

I realize that many Americans are vague at best on their social studies skills, but let's try to get some terminology straight, shall we?

To begin with, socialism is NOT the antonym (opposite) of democracy. Socialism, along with communism and capitalism are ECONOMIC systems. Democracy, along with fascism and anarchism are POLITICAL systems. It is possible to be, for instance, a fascist, capitalist society. Or an anarchic communist system. We claim to have a democratic capitalist system here, although I think that the two are hostile to one another and I'll explain why at the end of this post.

So let's begin by defining the economic systems that I've listed above.

Socialism is a political philosophy that supports social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources. So imagine... if president Obama WERE actually a socialist, WE'D get to decide where our oil went instead of private corporations profiting off of it. Wouldn't that be nice? Now bear in mind that we DO have a lot of socialist programs in the United States, including education, libraries and medicare/medicaid.

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. Bear in mind that this is the same root word as “community”, which everyone agrees is good. As one wit put it, communism means what's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine. The problem with it? As George Carlin said, “People like to own shit.”

Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned. Examples of capitalist societies are the United States and Saudi Arabia. Good company that we keep, huh?

Now for the political systems.

Democracy is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. Examples of democracies include the United States and Iran. Again, great company.

Just for shits and giggles, since we're actually a “democratic republic”, let's define a republic. A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch.

Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology. In other words, if you apply this to an economic system, you have a government run by corporations. Sound familiar?

Anarchism is equal rule by all people. Impossible, in other words. In practical application, it becomes rule by the strongest.

So why do I say that democracy and capitalism are at odds? Because when the wealthy have more access to government leaders than the poor, like we have in the US, the poor become politically powerless.

So before we start bandying these terms about, let's start being sure of what they mean, okay guys?

Peace.

Rev. Randal

"The Journey"

Hello.

I wanted to let everyone know that i'm starting a second blog that will contain a work of fiction called "The Journey". It can be found here.

This is a copyrighted work, so although i want people to read and enjoy it, and share the URL with their friends, please bear in mind that it may not be used by anyone other than me for any reason without my express and written permission.

Thanks and enjoy.

Rev. Randal

Stop Criticizing Criticizing Obama

The democrats of 2009 are turning into the republicans of 2004 and it's really starting to bug me.

I've heard several times that the so-called “blue dog” democrats who want changes in the health care bill before they pass it need to just shut up and go along with the President. On Bill Maher's show the other night, he was doing a bit about medications and coming up with non-existent humorous names for medicines (such as “Beau Talks” for women who are having a trouble getting their men to open up). One of these humorous medicines was Growacet (pronounced “grow a set”) for democrats who were having trouble lining up behind Obama's health care plan.

Zieg freakin' Heil, guys. Jeez.

For how many years did we revile the republican “leadership” in congress for bullying moderate republicans into just lining up behind Bush and doing whatever he wanted? That's not what this is about, is it?

Look... I agree that health care is a necessity. We spend more on public health than any other industrialized nation, while being behind ALL of them in actual “public health”. And yes, at first, that spending will increase. The idea is that, over time, this trend will reverse. As we get the sick people healthier, start allowing doctors a little more latitude to help people stop smoking and encourage better nutrition, especially for our kids, things will get better. Me personally, I think that if we don't do something and SOON to improve the overall health of our kids NOW, I don't want to know what public health bills for them are going to like like when they grow up. But, by the same token, I think that there are legitimate questions that need to be answered about the bill. Yes, you can immediately disregard the people who are obviously nothing more than shills for the insurance companies. Yes, you can immediately disregard the people who are screaming that THEY WANT THEIR COUNTRY BACK at town hall meetings. And yes, you can disregard all of the bullshit about “death panels”. But what you CAN'T disregard is Daryl Issa's concern about a lack of malpractice tort reform in the bill. What you CAN'T disregard is that there is almost nothing in there addressing preventive care. For instance, doing something that the republicans have been fighting for years... putting severe restrictions on the way that McDonald's and Hershey's advertises to our kids. Or REQUIRING people on the public health dime to give up smoking, maintain a good weight and have annual checkups.

I guess that what i'm saying, guys, is that we don't all have to stand in line behind President Obama. As a matter of fact, being a fellow intellectual, I think that he doesn't WANT that. His plans are ultimately good for the country (unlike the crap that Bush pushed through with the help of the obedient republicans), so I think that he WANTS a vigorous debate. If we have concerns, we need to state the concerns. RESPECTFULLY, TOWN HALL SHOUTERS! BECAUSE IF IT JUST COMES DOWN TO WHO CAN SHOUT THE LOUDEST, I CAN OUTSHOUT ALL OF Y'ALL! If you're a democratic lawmaker who doesn't think that “Obamacare” is a good bill, then yes, vote against it. Campaign against it. Don't be like most of our lawmakers were, both democrat and republican, when the “USA PATRIOT” act was introduced and just sign it so that you can hang out with the cool kids, okay?

Peace.

Rev. Randal

BREAKING CHINA

I made a decision on May 13th of this year. I won't call it a resolution, i won't call it a promise to myself, anything like that. Just a decision. That decision is that i would make a conscious effort for one year not to buy anything made in China. The one "out" that i allowed myself is that second-hand goods are okay. I made this "out" because if i buy something locally at a garage sale or Goodwill, i am not only keeping the money in my COUNTRY, but also in my COMMUNITY, and a lot of times in my NEIGHBORHOOD.

Why did i make this decision? Because i'm pissed. I'm pissed that, after the problems over the last couple of years with melamine in milk and lead paint in kid's toys and poisonous drywall, our net imports from China actually INCREASED. I'm pissed because we now pay Chinese kids a pittance to make shit that we don't need instead of paying American workers a living wage to make quality products that... let's face it... we don't really need. I'm pissed that more Americans aren't pissed... that they can't make the connection between our failing economy and all of the Chinese-made crap in their homes. Also, i don't like the way that our companies encourage Chinese sweat shop owners to act. I feel that American companies should be forced to play by our rules wherever they do business.

At my day job, on September 12th, 2001... like a lot of companies... we started selling American flags. Now first off, i always felt that if you didn't fly a flag on September 10th, 2001, then you shouldn't fly one on the 12th. Second off, as the hundredth or two-hundredth flag came through my line, i noticed something. These flags were made in China. AMERICAN FLAGS MADE IN CHINA! BEING FLOWN BY PEOPLE TO PROVE HOW "PATRIOTIC" THEY ARE! How pathetic is that? And when i pointed it out to one of my proudly conservative managers, he completely didn't see the problem. I am proud to say that my company has pretty much not stopped carrying flags since then, but the flags that we carry now are made in the USA. I hope that my input had something to do with that.

I also want to be really clear that this is not a "protest". A protest is something designed to change the behavior of someone else. This is strictly a personal decision. As an example, i don't fly... haven't since October, 2001. I LOVE flying, but hate what the government has done to it in the illusion of "safety". What should be a joy is now an endurance trial to no good end. When i went on vacation a few years back, a friend asked me if i was flying. I explained that i was driving because i didn't like what the government had done to flying. She, rather sniffily, said "Well, I don't feel the need to protest." It's not a protest. I'm not trying to change the way that the government handles flying... i'm simply not going to play. (Of course, if more of us stopped flying, ultimately the airlines would put pressure on the government to loosen the regulations and things might change... but that is not my goal.) Same thing with trying not to buy stuff that's made in China. Or driving my hybrid. I do that not for the environmental issues... although those are important issues for me... but to try to do what i can to get our oil supply out from under the control of CRAZY PEOPLE!

So here are some things that i have learned since i started this trek three months ago.

1) Get in the habit of looking. This is hard. I bought a toy for my cat a few days back ("guilt gift" after taking her in for a shot), and didn't think to look at the country of origin until i got home. And then, after examining the tag, discovered that it doesn't list the country of origin. I HAVE discovered through tag-checking that at least SOME Champion socks and Patriot computer ram are made in the USA.

2) Beware of mail-order. Before you order, check. This is hard. If you can't get an answer, live without it. Let's face it... like i said before... a lot of the crap made in China is stuff that we can live perfectly well without. I did discover this online store, though, that sells only American-made goods.

3) Continuing that thought... learn to live without stuff. Americans have become such a spoiled country that we actually view luxuries as necessary. At a previous day job, i collected child support from our employees and paid it to the custodial parents. I referred to these custodial parents as "my ex-wives", even though several of them were male. Anyway, one of my ex-wives' checks had become lost in the mail, and i had to cut and mail a new check to her. She was in financial crisis, apparently due to the late payment. Couldn't afford diapers, etc. She asked if i could express-mail her check to her. I told her that my boss probably wouldn't approve of that, but i'd have to check and call her back. (Now bear in mind that this was around 1997, so cell phones were still a mole on America's ass, not the full-fledged cancer that they have become today.) She said "Okay, if you can't reach me at home, here's my cell phone number and if you can't reach me there, here's my pager number..." See what i mean? She couldn't afford diapers if her child support was late, but had a cell phone and pager payment every month. PRIORITIES, PEOPLE!

4) Talk. Listen. Repeat. You'd be amazed how many people first ridiculed me for this idea, and are now thinking of getting on the bandwagon or already there, and now wanting to share their stories with me. Like my funniest story. Being a Star Trek geek, i was happy bordering on ecstatic when i discovered that Burger King was going to offer glasses tied to the new Star Trek film... MADE OF REAL GLASS! So i did what i thought was due diligence and discovered that the glasses are, in fact, made in the good old USA. Hoorah. So i get the glasses home, and i'm opening each box to check my new prizes for defects. One of the boxes happened to be in the bag upside-down, and that was how i discovered the legend "Glass made in USA... BOX PRINTED IN CHINA"! True story. Amazingly, amazingly stupid. But true.

5) Don't fixate on "made in USA" at first. It's nice, but just try to avoid "made in China". I have this funny/not funny joke that i tell people when they ask if a product is made in America... no, because the only things that we manufacture in the US anymore is Hondas and Toyotas. Not ENTIRELY true, but not miles off the mark, either. It's HARD to buy stuff made in the USA, but you can boy stuff that's NOT made in China.

And who knows. Maybe by not protesting in this way, we can all eventually turn America back into the economic powerhouse that we once were and desperately wish that we could be again.

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Taxation Without Representation

I've been thinking a lot lately about taxes.

The republicans want to present the question of taxation as a debate between the parties. They say the democrats are “tax and spend”.

The fact is that there is no real debate about taxation itself. Neither party likes to pay taxes. No American... I would say that no HUMAN BEING likes paying taxes. And as far as “tax and spend” goes, both parties spend. So if republicans don't tax, then how do they raise the revenue that they're spending? The billions of dollars that the Bush administration committed to pissing away in Iraq... where, exactly is that coming from?

So what is the debate? The debate is over who pays and how much.

The simple fact is that the middle class and the poor are bearing a much more disproportional part of the tax burden than the wealthy. What I mean by that is that if a person who earns a million dollars per year has to pay... say... a hundred thousand of that in taxes, it effects their way of life much less than if a person who earns... say.... thirty thousand per year has to pay three thousand of that in taxes.

For me, though, this entire debate misses a vital point, and that is that the tax code needs to be changed FUNDAMENTALLY. Not simply in who pays and how much, but in it's very NATURE.

For instance, one of my favorite miscarriages of justice is what happened to Al Capone. Thanks to “The Untouchables”, everyone knows about Capone's arch nemesis, Elliot Ness, the brave Federal Agent who brought him down. What's less well known is that Elliot Ness was not an FBI agent, or a secret service agent... he was an IRS agent! That's right, folks. They couldn't convict Capone for any of the hundreds or thousands of robberies and murders he had committed, couldn't bring him down for his numerous violations of prohibition, so they brought him down for not paying his taxes. Personally, that never seemed like a victory to me. It feels more like a failure on the part of our federal government.

And think about this... the federal government can and will incarcerate you for failing to pay your taxes. Personally, that seems like nothing short of extorting money from us to me.

So I think that the first thing that needs to happen with the tax code is that the IRS lose most of it's teeth. They are our employees, and they need to start treating us like their bosses instead of like miscreants.

The second thing is that the tax code needs to be simplified MASSIVELY. And like with gun laws, I think that instead of piling new laws on top of the old bad ones to try to simplify it, they simply need to set an expiration date on the existing tax laws and task congress with passing a new MASSIVELY SIMPLIFIED tax code before they expire.

The next thing is that the government has to stop trying to engineer society through tax law. A married homeowner with kids pays WAY less taxes than I do. We need to stop that. Why should the federal government care that I'm not married, don't own a house, and don't have any kids claimed on my W-2? This is nothing more or less than the government trying to force an outdated moral code on me.

Another thing that needs to happen... and bear in mind that I am, even as I write this, trying to establish my church... is that churches need to lose their tax exempt status. The founders made the church's tax exempt to try to prevent them from meddling in affairs of government. IT HASN'T WORKED. I've seen videos from 2000 and 2004 of ministers telling their flocks that God wanted them to vote for George W. Bush... and that brainwashing WORKED! Modern churches are NOT staying out of government affairs, so they need to pay their taxes like the rest of us. On a separate note, I also think that the confessional seal needs to be subject to subpoena, but that's another argument for another time.

So, idiotic “tax day tea parties” aside, I think that taxation is necessary for our government to operate. Taxes pay for our military. They pay for our schools, our libraries, our prisons, our police and fire departments. They pay for our public welfare system, which includes medicare, medicaid and care for our elderly. Sadly, when we DO succeed in getting the government to cut spending instead of raising taxes, it is schools, libraries and public welfare... the things that should be cut LAST... that are cut first. That needs to change, as well.

What we have in the twenty-first century, folks, is a classic case of taxation without representation. Reasonable tax laws will not be passed as long as the wealthy have access to our lawmakers while the poor do not. Reasonable gun laws will not be passed as long as our elected officials live in gated, guarded communities and work surrounded by guards and metal detectors. Reasonable public education will not exist while they send their kids to private schools. Reasonable public health care will not exist as long as they do not have to worry about it.

Just remember, brothers and sisters... WE are the government. The only way that they will be answerable to us on these issues is if we get involved and MAKE them answerable.

Peace.

Rev. Randal

I LOVE BARNEY FRANK!

Dear Massachusetts,

After watching the news today, I have an offer for you. I would like to offer any... or ALL... of our Washington state representatives in exchange for Barney Frank. I LOVE Barney Frank. Whereas our guys... well... I don't want to say that they lack BALLS or anything, but... you know. They're all democrats, like Mr. Frank, so you're not changing teams. And my thought is that you guys did such a great job producing Mr. Frank that you might actually be able to instill some guts into these guys.

Thank you.

I saw Barney Frank at a town hall meeting on the news today. One of these (I'm sure) insurance company shills stood up and... bear in mind that she's speaking to a GAY JEW, asked Barney Frank why he persists in pursuing a NAZI POLICY! I assume that she's talking about the public health care option, since Mr. Frank is, like me, a liberal. Mr. Frank responded “Let me go back into my heritage for a second and answer that question with a question... what planet do you spend most of your time on?” I love that. And then, when she asked if he was going to engage in conversation with her... after basically calling him a Nazi in her opening statement, he said “I get the feeling that it would be like conversing with a kitchen table.” GOD, I LOVE THIS MAN!

Incredibly offensive stupidity aside, I would like to know where exactly modern republicans... the people who put Herr Bush into office TWICE... get off referring to President Obama as a Nazi. I just don't understand it. Whenever a liberal compared Bush to Hitler I insisted that they defend that. If they couldn't, I told them to shut up. I did it, but I have a number of parallels that I can present in defense of the statement. If anyone would like them, I'd be happy to post them here. They are numerous. So to any of my republican brothers and sisters out there who want to compare Obama to Hitler, please let me know your rationale, because I honestly don't understand it.

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Some Questions...

Questions are both the pleasure and the curse of my life. Although they won't LEAVE ME ALONE, and i sometimes feel that my life would be much happier if i had more questions than answers, instead of the other way round, they are also what prompts me to learn new things, which is one of my greatest joys.

So these are some questions that have been bugging me between the beginning of the Obama administration and now...

Why is it, that when Bush started the whole bail-out thing it was good capitalism, but when Obama continued it, it was socialism. Can anyone answer that question for me?

How can we possibly call ourselves a Christian nation when we give tax breaks to the rich to buy more shit while when we have the inevitable budget cuts they wind up affecting the poorest of us and those most in need? You know... the ones that Christ SPECIFICALLY TOLD US TO TAKE CARE OF.

And the big one occurred to me today. Listening to these morons argue against "socialized medicine", meaning medical care for the poor... the so-called "public option"... leads me to wonder. When these people get old, as they invariably will, and lose their health insurance either because of loss of a job or because they can't afford it anymore... are they going to turn down medicare? That's socialized medicine, you know. So you people... you IDIOTS who speak without thinking... are you going to pass on medicare because you're so against socialized medicine? And i don't want to see you at my libraries anymore, either. That's socialized information, which you obviously want no part of. And forget calling my socialized assistance organizations when you're getting robbed or raped or your house is burning down (that's the police and fire department, in case you're wondering.)

And related to that. All of this nonsense that i've heard about Obama's "death panels". Do you honestly think that your insurance company doesn't have a panel to decide who's worth care and who's not? THAT'S ESSENTIALLY A DEATH PANEL, MY IGNORANT, IDIOTIC BROTHERS AND SISTERS, for Christ's own sweet sake.

Oh, FYI... the reason that your republican representatives have absolutely NO QUALMS about tricking you and lying to you about the "public" health care option so that you don't support it is because THEY HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! Our tax dollars pay for every bit of their health care. Funny how none of them are turning down their OWN version of socialized medicine, isn't it? The same reason that they cut funds to public schools (their kids all go private) and they feel perfectly okay pandering to the NRA at the cost of our lives and the lives of our kids (they all live in guarded, gated communities and work in buildings surrounded by guards and metal detectors). Please, my brothers and sisters, get your proverbial heads out of your collective asses and STOP ALLOWING THESE PEOPLE TO TRICK YOU!

Please.

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Banana-Eating Jungle Monkeys 2

First, a note of clarification for Bigmark... Justin Barrett, the officer who referred to professor Gates as a “Banana-Eating jungle monkey” wasn't the arresting officer. He was another officer on the Boston police force who referred to Professor Gates that way in a mass e-mail to other officers and to the Boston Globe. An article about his suspension can be found here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/07/30/2009-07-30_boston_cop_jason_barrett_suspended_for_calling_henry_louis_gates_a_jungle_monkey.html

He was apparently not only suspended (with pay, I stress again, kind of like a vacation) from his job as a police officer, but relieved of military duties by his National Guard unit.

Two more points that i'd like to add here that I realize that I forgot last night.

The first is an open note to all police officers that I may encounter. If you ever arrest me... IN MY HOME... after I have proven that it's MY HOME... the behavior of a banana-eating jungle monkey is just about the BEST behavior that you'll be able to expect from me. I think that we give police officers WAY too much power and leeway to use it in our culture. It's almost like cop worship. Of course, since I am largely white, I think that no matter how unruly I got, I would just get an apology from the officer for the misunderstanding. It sucks, but that's the way that it is. I think that if professor Gates had been white, he probably would have gotten an apology instead of cuffed and fingerprinted.

I also want to say that I think that President Obama behaved stupidly... er... I mean... I think that he could have handled that situation differently.

First off, Mr. Obama, I can't speak for the arresting officer, but in my lexicon of “bad” words, “stupid” is about the worst of them. You call me stupid and you're just asking for a fight. You want to say that I acted inappropriately, okay. It's been known to happen. You want to say that I behaved without thinking, okay. That, too. But “stupidly”? Come on, now.

Also, I am more than a little frustrated that he allowed himself to be sidelined by this incident and question when he SHOULD have been concentrating on pushing health care through. The republicans, on behalf of their rich friends in the Insurance business, managed to sideline the Clintons in the nineties, health care never got done, and look how much worse the situation is now than it was then. Mr. Obama, you CANNOT allow yourself to be distracted here. FOCUS. You are working out to be much more moderate than I thought that you were going to be when I voted for you, but this could be your LEGACY. No more beer for you until you finish your homework!

And, on a quick side-note, let me just explain to anyone out there who's been watching F-word news... Obama's health care plan does NOT mean that he's going to let your granny die. Rationing of health care does NOT mean that people will be told that they are too ill to care for. As a matter of fact, that's what your buddies in the insurance business are doing NOW. What it DOES mean that, if you're on the public plan, and you go running into the ER with a hangnail screaming “EMERGENCY!” that you've gotta WAIT. Okay? Just to clarify.

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Banana-eating Jungle Monkeys

I wanted to talk a little tonight about Justin Barrett, the Boston cop who referred to Henry Lewis Gates in an e-mail as a "banana-eating jungle monkey".

After making this odd and racially-charged statement, he then said "but i'm not a racist".

First off, let's say that the ONLY way that this statement is NOT racist, is if he would apply the same term to a white suspect, which i doubt. I mean, the term in and of itself is a combination of two racist terms - jungle bunny and porch monkey. Officer Barrett... YOU'RE A RACIST!

And now... get this... he's actually SUING over his PAID suspension from the police department over this. His attorney said that he didn't mean to characterize professor Gates as a banana-eating jungle money with this statement. Oh, really? Then why the hell did he say it?

Look, if i'm in an argument with someone of another race, the LAST thing that would occur to me would be to spout some racial epithet. I may question whether the person's parents were brother and sister. I may imply that he has sexual relations with his mother. I will DEFINITELY question his intelligence. But i will not call him a racist name.

After all, there are so many BETTER reasons not to like someone than their race.

Peace.

Rev. Randal

And Another Thing...

I don't believe in gravity anymore, and I think that it should stop being taught in our schools. I mean it. The so-called “laws” of gravity are really nothing more than an attempt to steer our children away from God and into a random universe where things happen according to some arbitrary “law”, and not because God made them happen.

What brought on this change of heart? In reading the Old Testament, you discover that Joshua “stopped the moon and the sun” for one full day, dead in the sky. Now we know, of course, from observable phenomenon that the sun does not ACTUALLY move through the sky, but instead the Earth revolves on it's axis and rotates around the sun. So what this is ACTUALLY saying is that, in answer to a prayer from Joshua, God stopped the Earth from both revolving and rotating for a full day. Now, the so-called “laws” of gravity tell us that if this were to happen, everything, including our atmosphere, would go flying off of the Earth if this were to happen, and what would be left would be a lifeless rock floating through space. And that OBVIOUSLY didn't happen. Therefore, since the Bible is literal and unchallengable, it must be the so-called “laws” of gravity that are wrong. So there.

…

See how stupid that sounds, anti-evolutionists?

Peace.

Rev. Randal
Universal Life Church

Furthermore...

Furthering the theme that I touched on yesterday...

I was just listening to a song by Woody Guthrie called “Jesus Christ”. The first verse of the song is “Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land, a hard-working man and brave. He said to the rich, "Give your money to the poor," so they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.” The song ends with the line “If Jesus was to preach what He preached in Galilee, they would lay poor Jesus in His grave.”

I would like to ask all of my Christian friends who love money, and who would deny shelter, food and health care to poor people to do a little serious self-examination. If a man were to arise today who said the same things that Jesus said 2000 years ago, what would you do? Would you accept what the man said, sell all that you have and give them money to the poor and follow him, or would you be the first in line calling for his blood? If you answer the former, then I have to ask... what's stopping you? He told us to do this all those years ago, so what's stopping you? You know what he demanded of his followers (Christians), so why aren't you doing it?

Another song by another artist who is vilified by the modern “Christian” right, Jim Croce, called “Which Way Are You Going?” includes the lines “One hand on the Bible and the other on a gun” and “You say you love the baby, then you crucify the man.” Jesus himself spoke poorly of people who pay honor to God with their mouths while not doing good works with their hands.

So I have to wonder... what the hell is wrong with you people?

Peace.

Randal

Bleeding Heart

A conservative Catholic friend of mine the other day referred to me as a "bleeding heart" for saying that ALL Americans should be guaranteed health care. For any of you so-called "Christians" out there who think that it takes a bleeding heart to want that, i wanted to offer you a quick reminder of who the original "bleeding heart" was.

Peace.

Randal

PAY ATTENTION, DAMMIT!

The current tug-of-war over health care is exactly the kind of case where I stress to non-involved Americans that they have to PAY ATTENTION!

Yes, it’s hard. But anything worthwhile is hard. No, it’s not always exciting. But again – anything worthwhile is not always exciting. The republican movement seems to be “Anything that the president wants, we automatically oppose.” So when you see an ad about healthcare saying that the Obama plan will make you change your doctor to some kid who got his doctorate at Dope U. in Tijuana or whatever, look beyond the ad and find out what the truth is.

The most important aspect of this attention-paying is that you need to develop your own idea of what American health care should look like, or if we should have it AT ALL, and make sure that our representatives are doing that. If they’re not, vote against them next time.

For instance, my idea of American health care is that A) all Americans should have some kind of health care, including basic services that are not now covered by welfare such as annual check-ups and well-child checks, B) large employers should be REQUIRED to provide affordable health care for their employees, and C) small employers who DO provide affordable health care for their employees get massive tax breaks. President Obama’s plan seems to be similar to this. In four years, if either we don’t have health care, or if we do and it’s not satisfactory to me, then I’m going to see what my representatives and the president did or did not do on this issue and vote accordingly.

Peace.

Randal

Consistency

Something happened at my day job recently that made me realize that the word “consistency” is going the way of “extreme” and “normal” and “regular”. It is losing the meaning that it SHOULD have.

I was disciplined at work for an accident, “consistently” (according to the store manager) with someone who had done the same thing purposefully.

Let's be really clear here. I tried to explain this to the manager, and then to a regional director, but neither got it.

Actions cannot and SHOULD NOT be “consistent”. Anyone who keeps doing the same thing in the same way either lacks courage, imagination or intelligence. RESULTS should be consistent, the actions taken to achieve that consistency should vary from situation to situation. Always, though, consistency of the end result should be the goal.

For instance, the consistent goal of business, time immemorial, has been to bring in as much money as possible with as little outflow as possible. The ways that we have achieved this through the years have changed significantly and need to keep changing. I always love it when some American says to me that something is the right way to do something because it's “always been done that way”. Really what this means is that it's always been done this way as far as you know, because, being an American, history for you began the day that you were born and will end the day that you die. Anything that happened before your birth is inconsequential... anything after your death is irrelevant. I think that this is the attitude that leads us to ignore global climate change so as not to inconvenience ourselves. We're seeing really minor changes in the weather and temperature. No big deal. We can live with it, right? The problem is that it's just going to keep getting nastier and nastier... more and more extreme. But hell, that'll be the KID'S problem, right?

So you see how our consistent actions are resulting in an outcome that is not consistent with what we claim in this country? We need to be FLEXIBLE in our actions if we want the same better world for our kids that our parents claimed to have wanted for us.

It's the same with business. Any business that does the same thing... in the same way... every single time... regardless of variables... will not last. Of course, just like with the global climate change issue, who cares what happens to the company in twenty years, right? If I aim at the short-term only (and remember anything that happens after me is irrelevant) then “staying the course” regardless of icebergs can be beneficial. Makes the books look really good for today and tomorrow. And that's all that matters. If my “consistency” causes the business to go bankrupt in twenty years because no one decent will work for them anymore out of fear of unjust “discipline”... well... that's simply not my problem.

Which brings something else about “consistent” to mind. Consistent is a relative term. Nothing can be, in and of itself, consistent. It can only be consistent with something else. So if your actions are “consistent” with your actions, then they're consistent with nothing. Doing the same thing in the same way is idiotic... I think, though, that people have a hard time saying “I'm going to do this the same way every time because I'm too (unimaginative/stupid/lazy) to look at the variables of each individual situation.

Which is inconsistent with the idea of long-term success and growth of a company.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, who could say almost ANYTHING better than I can, said “Consistency is the hobgoblin of the little mind.”

See how that works?

Peace.

Randal

Some Thoughts on Marriage

I recently advised a young friend of mine who commented that she wasn't sure if she should get married not to. Her response was that, just because I had a bad experience, I shouldn't assume that everyone will. Which... as happens with MOST things... got me thinking.

It is true that I had a bad experience with marriage. I had a really excellent three year marriage. The problem is that it was spread out over a twelve-year period. A day here, a day there, it adds up. It is also true that 95% of the marriages that I know that are more than ten years old are no longer truly love relationships. They are now more like two buddies cohabiting. Or, in some cases, two rivals staying together only for the thrill of outliving each other.

But neither of these are the reasons that I proffered this advice. I just think that marriage is something that needs to be entered into with as clear of a head and as much reasonable thought as is possible. If you marry for passion, within a year you'll be struggling to remember why you got married in the first place.

Once upon a time, marriage was a necessity. Children could not be legitimized without marriage, you couldn't even have SEX without getting married first. Even after premarital sex became somewhat acceptable in the sixties and seventies, marriage was necessary to insure that both partners enjoyed each others work benefits, etc. That was really the reason that my ex and I married. We had planned on just living happily together forever, but the only way that I could cover she and my step-daughter on my health insurance was to get married. Now, with domestic partner insurance almost universally available, even THAT is no longer a requirement. So the question remains... why get married?

The first is the idea that you have some kind of religious thing that prevents you from having sex without marrying. This is not the case even among some pretty serious religious people these days, but it does still remain in some cases. Fine.

Barring that, why else? Because you love that person? That's fine, too. But I think that most of us know that love and passion don't typically last. There's an old saw about how, if you put a penny in a jar for every time that you have sex in the first year, and then take a penny out every time after that you'll never empty the jar. I know ONE couple for whom this is not true, but they're both hotties. I have a hard time figuring out how these two people ever manage to get out of bed. And I can honestly say that every woman that I've ever loved... including my ex-wife... I STILL love. But in each case that love has transmuted. So again I ask... why marry?

Do you expect marriage to change nothing between you? Then why marry? As my old dad says, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it works, don't monkey with it.

Do you expect marriage to change things between you? Presumably for the better? What if it doesn't? What if all of the things that drive you crazy about the other person that you expect marriage to fix STILL drive you crazy after five years of marriage? If you feel like things need to be changed (read as: fixed) in your relationship, shouldn't you fix these things BEFORE you get married? Another old saw has it that a man marries expecting the woman to remain the same and a woman marries expecting the man to change. My experience is that it's more accurate to say that a woman marries a man thinking that she can change (read as: fix) him.

I realize that it's not “romantic” to think logically of marriage before you do it. Personally, I think that if half the planning and thought went into the marriage as does the wedding that most people wouldn't get married. I mean, most people give more thought to a five-year contract to buy a car then they do to a LIFETIME contract of marriage.

Trust me, folks. I'm a romantic. But part of that is that, if I'm going to be in a relationship with someone, I want the passion and romance that I feel for that person on the first day to remain for the extent of the relationship. That's why I'm a proponent of contract marriages. Draw up a contract that you'll remain together for a year, or three years, or five years. No more than ten at a time. Include in that contract disposition of possessions and children at the end of the contract. If things are still going good at the end of the contract, renew it for another group of years. What is modern marriage, after all, but a contract? The difference is that it's a LIFETIME contract with only one out: divorce. And personally, I think that if contract marriages were put into place, you'd see our national divorce rate drop to zero.

Just a thought.

Peace.

Randal

Health Care Conundrum

Honestly, I’ve spent the day trying to figure out what the hell is so hard about national health care. Why does this present such a problem that we have to spend more than a decade and millions of dollars talking about it without actually DOING anything.

The argument presented by the corporate-run right is that a “public” health care option will pose a threat to private insurance companies. What I can’t figure out is that they actually say this as if it’s a BAD thing. But, okay. Let’s say that’s true. It’s not, by the way. Both England and Canada have both a public health care system and thriving private insurers.

So here’s the way that I think that it should go, if anyone’s interested.

At your basic tier, you have the public health care option. This is BASIC health care, provided to every American, free of charge PERIOD. On this health care plan there would be no voluntary procedures, such as plastic surgery, Viagra, anti-smoking pills or anti-fat pills. Yes, yes, howl socialism all that you want. I view it as more of a Christian imperative. Christ demanded that we care for one another, and frankly we’re doing a piss-poor job of it. Think of this first tier as a parachute. You’d much rather be riding in the airplane, but… failing that… it can save your life.

On top of that would be the tier that we now know. This is where the private insurers fit in. The argument is that, if a public health care option is available, people who currently have private insurance will give it up to suckle from the government teat. I can tell you, folks, that as far as I’m concerned that’s about as far from true as it can get. If there were a severely stripped and compromised public health care option available, or I could keep my Aetna coverage for what I pay for it every month, I’m keeping Aetna. I may have had my disagreements and run-ins with them over the years, but basically they’ve been pretty good to me. A little nuts – for instance, my diabetes lancets cost around $8.50 off the shelf, but the insurance co-pay on them is $10 – but basically pretty good to me.

Another aspect of this would be that businesses over a certain size would be REQUIRED to provide decent health insurance to their employees. And no, I’m not talking about burdening small business with this. That’s why you place a certain size restriction on it. If you have more than… to give a random figure… 5000 employees, you cease being a “small” business and have to start providing good health insurance. And what about small businesses? Any small business that voluntarily provided good health insurance to their employees would be showered with tax exemptions. Not the big guys. Wal*Mart will be fine without the billions of dollars in corporate hand-outs that they receive every year. They’ll still be around. Like a cockroach. But small, upstart businesses, like Sam Walton’s little five and dime was when it started, will be given the advantages that they need to succeed. One friend of mine argued that this would prevent small businesses owners from wanting to “grow” their business. Really? So I’m going to keep myself from accruing wealth at some point simply because I have to provide health insurance to my employees? I don’t bloody well think so.

Oh, on a side note… I also think that American businesses doing business overseas would have to play by OUR rules. They are American, after all. They would have to pay American minimum wage to their employees WHEREVER they are. They would be required to provide health insurance. Our pollution laws would apply to them, so they couldn’t enslave Chinese kids or poison the Yangtzee river anymore than they could enslave AMERICAN kids or poison the MISSISSIPPI river.

So can someone please tell me what’s so God-damned HARD about this before I go CRAZIER trying to figure it out?

Peace.

Randal

Michael Jackson Remains Dead

As the media feeding frenzy around the death of Michael Jackson continues, I have only one wish... I wish that they would use it as an opportunity to open SUBSTANTIVE discourse on something instead of simply “did ya love him, did ya hate him, what's your favorite song, what's your favorite video”? (My answers, by the way, are that I thought that he was an excellent musical artist, but a severely flawed personality and my favorite video and song both are “Smooth Criminal”.)

For instance, in 2005, as most of us remember, Jackson was accused (again) of molesting little boys at his Neverland Ranch. At the time, the big question that everyone was asking was “Do you think that he did it or not?” To me, even at the time, the bigger question was “How on Earth is this man expected to get a fair trial?” You would have to move the trial to darkest New Guinea to get a jury of twelve who not only hadn't heard the case, but didn't already have their minds made up about it. Americans have a very screwed up idea of what “fair” means in this context, though. I was watching an episode of the TV show “The Practice” recently and they were doing voir dire for a trial for a man who was accused of murdering his wife with an axe. One potential juror, when asked if she had heard of the case said “Yes, but I think that every American deserves a fair trial – even men who kill their wives with an axe.” She didn't seem to realize that if she already believed that he did it, she could AUTOMATICALLY not give him a fair trial. But the 24/7 news coverage of this stuff makes a fair trial, especially for a celebrity, in this country impossible. (My personal opinion, if you're interested, by the way, is that he did it. After all, one of the little boys fairly exactly described the discolored patches on Jackson's penis. Kind of hard to do if you haven't been up close and personal with it. Which leads me to my next point.)

The other thing that we could do here, is use this as an opportunity to open a discourse about the way that we treat child molesters in this country. I think that one of the reasons that MJ HAD to be acquitted is because we're taught to treat ALL child molesters in this country equally – as irredeemably scummy bastards. And love him or hate him, it's really hard to think of MJ as an irredeemably scummy bastard. Therefore, by that logic, he cannot be a child molester.

So let me open this dialogue.

I'd like to start with the idea that all child molesters and pedophiles are NOT created equal and should not be treated the same under the law. There are three types of people out there who harm children sexually. The first is a pedophile. A pedophile is a person who has a sexual attraction to children. And contrary to what the religious right says, the VAST majority of pedophiles are not homosexual. There are homosexual male pedophiles who are attracted to little boys, homosexual female pedophiles who are attracted to little girls, but the majority are heterosexual pedophiles attracted to the opposite sex.

A pedophile, by definition, has not acted on this attraction. They have never touched a child. These people CAN be helped, and I think that, as a society, it is our responsibility to help them. Although many people find this distasteful, I think that one way to do that is to provide them with fantasy materials. Illustrations and stories, in other words. Things that do NOT harm a real child in their production. Also, we need to end the law that requires therapists to report ANYONE who comes to them admitting a sexual attraction to children to the police. This doesn't reduce predation on children, it simply prevents these people from coming forward while they still CAN be helped.

Once a pedophile has acted on this attraction, he or she becomes a child molester. This is where MJ fits in, and, I think, the majority of Catholic priests who have been busted for touching a child. I think that, because of his own screwed-up childhood, he had an attraction to children that his adult mind translated as sexual. Jail time IS appropriate for a child molester. However, I do think that the sentence has to be dependent upon the action, rather than mandatory sentencing. For instance, a guy who touches a little girl's breast should get less of a jail sentence than a woman who performs oral sex on a little boy, who should get less of a sentence than a man who penetrates a little girl or boy with his penis. See? Degrees of severity. And no, people, I am not speaking from a depth of ignorance here – I was molested by an older relative when I was a kid, so I have some basis for what I'm saying here. (And no, please do not append notes of condolence – most of my memories of this are lost to time (I was about eight at the time, thirty-five years ago) but that few that I retain are not unpleasant. Ask a woman who was penetrated as a little girl if that's an accurate description of how badly SHE was traumatized.)

The third category, the irredeemable bastard category, is the predator. The predator is not necessarily a pedophile, even if he or she harms a child sexually. The predator is simply drawn to weakness or perceived weakness. Vulnerability or perceived vulnerability. Serial killers fit into this category, as do rapists. Their actions are rarely if ever prompted by sexual desire as we know it. They are turned on not by the other person, but by the vulnerability of the other person. Although these people are frequently damaged personalities, they are beyond help or redemption. The damage has simply gone too far. As opposed as I am personally to the death penalty, I cannot help but think that all that we can do with a person like this is jail them for life or execute them. We cannot allow them back into society, period. Some people believe that the answer to this is physical or chemical castration. The problem with physical castration is that as long as the predator retains hands or a mouth, they retain the ability to prey sexually on another person. The problem with chemical castration is that there has to be some way to make sure that the person remains on their regimen of castrative drugs. This may well work with many child molesters, as many of them are racked with guilt by their desires, and will continue taking the drugs simply to be free of that guilt. Most predators will not.

I base my statement on child molesters on a friend of mine. He went to jail for sexually interfering with a twelve year old girl. When he got out of prison, he was determined not to do it again, so he would introduce himself by explaining that he was a pedophile and could not be alone with children. EVER. A female acquaintance of his, believing, I guess, that this determination made him safe, asked him to babysit her kids. My friend, in a moment of weakness or stupidity accepted. He molested all three kids. He never went to jail for this because, before he could be arrested, he hanged himself in grief.

Folks, if we truly wish to stop this evil, we have to start addressing the issue as responsible adults, not as scared kids.

Peace.

Randal

The 2008 Election is Finally Over

Al Franken was finally declared the winner of the senatorial race in Minnesota, seven months after the election. This election, more than anything, makes me wish that the Gore campaign had fought harder in 2000. It was a tough fight, but finally the people of Minnesota received justice, which the people of Florida never did.

Really, though, the thing that struck me the most about this was the response of both candidates. I, for one, am so sick of the bitter, vitriolic partisan politics that’s been… not a PART of our political landscape, but our ENTIRE political landscape… since 1996, that I found myself letting out an audible sigh of relief when Norm Coleman bowed down like a gentleman, and Al Franken admitted that that he barely won.

Franken, especially, demonstrated the kind of humility that you never see in politics anymore. “I won by 312 votes (out of three million)… a lot of people didn’t vote for me. I have a lot to prove to the people of Minnesota.”

One thing that people have said is that a comedian has no part in government. Well, let’s see… comics… at least lasting comics like Franklin and not flashes in the pan like Andrew Clay… tend to be intelligent, thoughtful, clever and creative. These people are right, I guess. There’s no place for people like that in modern U S government.

Peace.

Randal